Your Pong example will do nicely to illustrate the difference. In Pong, if I lose the first point this has no impact on my capacity (or lack thereof) to win the second and subsequent points. In Chess, if I lose a pawn this has (all other things being equal) a substantial impact on my capacity to do well in subsequent exchanges.shMerker post=6.67890.618912 said:I'm curious how your argument doesn't extend to virtually all multiplayer games.
I still think thats too short of a perspective. The digital games are nothing like what they are being compared to (the analog meatwear games like Rubics Cube) , Space Invaders?!?! Have you tried playing that lately? PacMan?Vortigar post=6.67890.623650 said:Gooney:
I beg to differ, Tetris, Pacman, Missile Command and Space Invaders are, like Solitaire, Patience and Rubik's Cube, exceedingly simple designs that could be replayed into virtual eternity.
I think that depends on your definition of single player. If you take a strategy game and give the player an AI to play against all you're really doing is overlaying another set of rules over the game concerning how it will react to what the player does. If this AI is complex enough it could even generate the depth normally reserved for a human player on the other side of the board, but it would still be essentially the same as before, a new set of rules added on top of the game. If you were to define a computer capable of passing Turing's test (in the context of go that is) as a player then your assertion would be correct by definition. Any game as complex as playing go with a live opponent is automatically a multiplayer game.Vortigar post=6.67890.623650 said:To answer your question of creating a single player game with the depth of Go. No, you can't create one.